By Noah Rothman
Monday, August 01, 2022
Americans were bombarded over the weekend with political
“analysis” alleging that Senate Republicans are either blinded by
self-destructive rage or are savage fanatics who don’t care whom they hurt. The
story we were told is that the minority party’s members in the upper chamber of
Congress performed a sudden about-face and blocked cloture on a bill to fund
health-care services for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, and they did so
largely out of spite. That simplistic morality play, in which Republicans are
reduced to one-dimensional villains, only obscures the problems with this
legislation. Maybe that’s the point.
Indeed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the
country has been subjected to a campaign of emotional blackmail because its
primary proponent, former comedian Jon Stewart, has become the face of this
effort. Though he is surely honest and well-intended—Stewart has advocated this
expansion of veterans’ benefits for years—he took his white-hot frustrations
out on the GOP alone, and he did so from every available media platform.
“You don’t support the troops,” Stewart accused
Republicans who voted against ending debate on this bill. “You support the war
machine.” The entertainer added that “these motherf*****s sit in the
air conditioning, walled off from” the conflicts they send American soldiers to
fight, are engaged in “casual cruelty” and “parliamentary f***ery.” Flanked by
a company of aggrieved veterans, Stewart alleged that the GOP deployed “the Byzantine rules” of the Senate to “keep sick veterans
suffering.”
A slightly less profane but equally craven explanation
for the Republican Party’s conduct was provided by Sen. Chris Murphy. He charged that one of two motivations
accounted for the GOP’s behavior. Either Republicans didn’t care about
veterans’ issues, or they were lashing out in an inchoate rage over a
Democratic deal to address climate change under the guise of fighting
inflation. Either way, Republicans’ actions were indefensible.
This smear—and it is a smear—is predicated on the
presumption that it will encounter a friendly media environment where it will
be disseminated uncritically and without hesitation. When it comes to
Democratic talking points, that’s usually a safe bet. It sure paid off in this
case. But the truth of the matter is more complicated. In fact, a fuller
understanding of the Republican position should compel Democrats with the
capacity for shame to explain themselves.
The effort to invoke cloture on the Honoring Our PACT Act
went down to defeat last week after it had already passed the U.S. Senate in June
with significant Republican support. Why? Days before the Senate was scheduled
to vote on this bill, lawmakers raised objections to a “blue slip” provision in the bill which
contained a tax provision that the House had not yet voted on. Since all bills
involving revenue and taxation must originate in the House, the offending
provision was stripped, and the bill was formally reintroduced to the Senate.
In the interim, however, the Washington Post reported that Sen. Pat Toomey
“worked behind the scenes to inform his colleagues about a major flaw in the
bill.”
The Pennsylvania senator’s long-held objection to this
legislation rests on the fact that about $400 billion in spending over the next
ten years has been deemed “non-discretionary,” meaning that it doesn’t need to
be deliberately appropriated by Congress and will be spent, no matter what. But
that spending isn’t dedicated to veterans’ affairs; it isn’t dedicated to
anything, in fact. It is a blank check that Toomey believes will be made out to
Democratic priorities or favored constituencies without a public debate over
the value of that spending.
“It’s about Congress hiding behind an important veterans
care bill a massive unrelated spending binge,” Toomey alleged. His proposed amendment to this legislation
would strike that provision, preserving the $280 billion specifically devoted
to veterans’ care as mandatory spending. But Toomey’s amendment was tabled by Senate leadership and
remains unconsidered. These are perfectly valid considerations that could be
easily resolved. But Democrats held the vote anyway. And when it failed, they
defaulted to a theatrical display of befuddlement over Republicans’ motives.
Their confusion, and Stewart’s, is rooted in the fact
that so many Republican lawmakers voted in favor of cloture in June but against
cloture last week. “They’re manufacturing reasons to vote against legislation
that they literally voted for just last month,” said one frustrated veteran who appeared alongside
Stewart. “And so, it’s really a new level of low.” Advocates for this worthy
cause don’t even address the simplest explanation for Senate Republicans’
reversal, which is by no means exculpatory of Republicans, that Toomey and his
staff read the legislation more carefully than his GOP colleagues. It must be
that those senators, some of whom are veterans themselves, “don’t support veterans.”
“This is the oldest trick in Washington,” Toomey said with due contempt for those who accused
him of being a “f***ing coward.” Lawmakers “take a sympathetic group of
Americans,” he continued, “craft a bill to address their problems and then
sneak in something completely unrelated that they know could never pass on its
own and dare Republicans to do anything about it.” It’s such a tired tactic
that only those with virtually no exposure to legislative affairs in Washington
could fail to comprehend Republican objections, even if they don’t agree with
them. That does not describe Senate Democrats. It doesn’t even describe Jon
Stewart. They bet that profound displays of anguish over the Republican Party’s
heartlessness would find a credulous audience in the press, and they were
correct.
That does not, however, legitimize this callous
politicking. It is not heartless to object to federal spending for spending’s
sake at a time of rampant inflation, which was partly exacerbated by the
federal government’s introduction of too much capital into an economy typified
by shortages in goods and labor. The handful of responsible political actors
who have engaged with Toomey’s objections directly and in good faith claim that
this additional funding is padding to avoid “rationing of care” to veterans. They have nevertheless
failed to explain why the non-discretionary spending in question isn’t
dedicated to veterans’ care. But even this level of discourse has been the
exception. The rule, such as it exists, has been to paint a portrait of
Republicans as malevolent skinflints who put their political objectives above
the suffering endured by soldiers exposed to toxic conditions in overseas
battlefields.
The facile dramaturgy we’ve been forced to endure is the
first clue that what we’re witnessing is not a reasoned debate over competing
policy priorities. We’re to be led by the hand to the conclusion that
Republicans care more about money than veterans’ lives. But as Toomey
predicted, there is a simple solution to this problem. And given the broad
support for the underlying goals of the PACT Act, resolving what Toomey deemed
a budgetary “gimmick” is the likeliest outcome. But not before this moment of
Democratic catharsis has passed.
You can say a lot about Senate Republicans’ conduct here,
not all of it complimentary. But you cannot call their defense of American
taxpayer dollars from wanton abuse cowardice, particularly given their
understanding of how this news cycle was likely to play out. The party in power
or its phalanx of celebrities hope you ignore what Republicans are saying, read
their minds, and divine their wholly nefarious intentions from your couch. That
brand of trite demagogy doesn’t advance anyone’s interests, much less those of
America’s veterans, but it does help beleaguered Democrats. Perhaps the press
should spend a little time pondering the governing party’s motivations, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment